Talk:David Meerman Scott/Archives/2013

Reassessment Needed

The tone (nothing but positive) and especially lack of RS cites for anecdotes (see first paragraph) don't shout "Good Article". EBY (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please see WP:GAR Woz2 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I also removed the tag that says the article lacks a NPOV. The article was peer reviewed during GAN and the community found its POV to pass. If you want to override the peer review, as I suggest above, please use WP:GAR. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:David Meerman Scott/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has a severe issue with sources and quotes. Of the 5 cites in the Lead, all of them are the subject himself - 1) a press release his company issued, 2) his own website, 3 + 4 + 5) his own books. The second paragraph starts with the omniscient sentence "The book was inspired by an accidental discovery..." with no cite at all. In fact, of the 75 cites there are about 20-22 valid RS (Boston Globe, NYT, other books) but the majority are the subject's own books, YouTube, Tweets, Facebook, blogs, and the subject's own GooglePlus and posts. This is inverted ratio; it definitely lends to the whole article having a marketing tone. As a BLP, all the material in the article needs a reliable source. Primary sources should be used sparingly. Information that doesn't have an RS should be blanked. EBY (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	There is an overall positive tone with no criticism, that lends itself to a promotional feel - sentences lik "At NewsEdge he and his team found that do-it-yourself programs based on creating useful content and publishing it on-line at virtually no cost consistently generated more interest from qualified buyers than expensive profession public relations programs" which appears TWICE in article with no professional cite or third-party professional agreement.	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	Perhaps each major book in a subheading, rather than a long essay about all the books, seminars, and appearances.	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Key issue with article.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Of the 5 cites in the Lead, all of them are the subject himself - 1) a press release his company issued, 2) his own website, 3 + 4 + 5) his own books. The second paragraph starts with the omniscient sentence "The book was inspired by an accidental discovery..." with no cite at all. In fact, of the 75 cites there are about 20-22 valid RS (Boston Globe, NYT, other books) but the majority are the subject's own books, YouTube, Tweets, Facebook, blogs, and the subject's own GooglePlus and posts. This is inverted ratio; it definitely lends to the whole article having a marketing tone. As a BLP, all the material in the article needs a reliable source. Primary sources should be used sparingly. Information that doesn't have an RS should be blanked.	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	There is original resource in this article (YouTube videos, the subject's own tweets), and sentences like Writing about Newsjacking for Forbes Magazine, Nick Morgan notes that Scott and his publisher, Wiley, "point the way forward" by publishing this book only in electronic formats. which appears like OR.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article is laudatory towards subject; 'Scott says anybody can earn attention by "publishing their way in"', and Nick Morgan notes that "David is one of those select few people who saw and understood the social media phenomenon as it began... - this is an editorial by a columnist who has been hired by the subject. Including it without context appears overly promotional.	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

• I addressed all of these issues in your prior, inconclusive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Meerman_Scott/GA2 . I'm not sure why we're starting over here. Also you still don't seem to have absorbed "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" WP:SELFPUB. This now feels like harassment esp. your phrase on my talk page "you or your project" Woz2 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Woz2, let me address your concerns:
  1. Because the community-based Good Article review went nowhere, I initiated the individual based one.
  2. Whatever has happened previously, the issues are there now. Policy on WP:SELFPUB 5: "the article is not based primarily on such sources". But ALL the cites in the opening paragraphs are SELFPUB. I would say that meets criteria of "based primarily."
  3. If you firmly feel this article stands as a GA with these sources, then let's call an RfC or 3O and get more input.
  4. The phrase on your talk page that feels like harassment is actually the standard template from Step 4 of the Individual Assessment process at WP:GAR. Nothing is meant by it except a polite heads-up.
  5. Finally, let me say I would have fixed some of these cites myself but couldn't find the right RS to support the article as written in a pretty wide search.

EBY (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, our views are irreconcilable, so please ask for a third opinion. I don't believe that a book published by John Wiley counts as self-published (see WP:SPS for what is considered self-published) and I cannot conceive how quoting an article in Forbes ("point the way forward") could possibly constitute OR.Woz2 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• ...in addition, from WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" My emphasis. Woz2 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment

This was originally opened by EBY3221 on July 9, 2013, and the final comment was made the following day by Woz2, the primary author of the article. Neither are still editing on Wikipedia: Woz2 became a vanished user in June 2014; EBY3221 was blocked indefinitely in September 2015. Since the reassessment has been abandoned for over three years and neither can continue, I'm closing this individual assessment today; the only way I can close it is as "kept". However, I think some of the concerns were cogent, so I will be opening a community reassessment after this individual assessment has closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)